For comparision sake. Top, M1909 Mounted riflemans belt. Center, M1910 Mounted riflemans belt, and bottom, M1910 modified to accept one M1911 ammunition pouch. Sometimes they were modified by removing the revolver pockets on either side of the buckle so they would accept two M1911 pouches.

As a side note, WWI Nerd mentioned that the M1909 Cavalry Cartridge belt without saber chape is the Infantry version of the M1909 Cavalry belt.

On page 13 of Dorsey's US Web Belts and Bandoleers: 1903-1981, there is a mention of a M1909 Infantry Cartridge Belt. Dorsey describes this, "At the time the M1903 Cavalry Cartridge Belt was being modified (with the added revolver pockets) to the M1909 configuration, the Army decided to re-designate the M1903 Infantry Cartridge Belt to the M1909 Infantry Cartridge Belt. Thus the collector can have two for the price of one- since it is the same belt."

That never made sense to me, renaming the M1903 belt the M1909. WWI Nerd's diligent research has cleared this up. There was no re-designation of the M1903 Infantry Belt. The M1909 Infantry Cartridge Belt is the same belt as the Cavalry belt, but without saber chape.

those are combined rifle & revolvers belts for riflemen NCOs armed aditionaly with a revolver on the belt....very old mexican war era staff that quickly abandoned around 1916-17 in favour of more simple equipments

Whilst on the subject of M1909 and M1910 belts I thought these might be of interest, the top two are similar to that already shown. The first belt is the M1909 cavalry belt, the second the M1910 mounted also modified similar to the one shown by Robin. The last belt is also an M1910 mounted but never had any revolver pockets just the space for the magazine pouch, very similar to the M1914 mounted belt, although it is not identical.
Kurt.

They were simply slipped onto the belt. The extra width of the cartridge belt as well as the thickness of the cartridge pocket kept them from sliding latterly on the belt when worn.

When permission was given to alter the M1909 Cavalry and the M1910 Mounted belts in the field it was left up to the individual soldier or cavalry trooper to determine which side of the belt he wished to carry the pistol magazine pocket.

Evidently this practice offended senior commanders and in October of 1913 an official directive was issued which stipulated that all pistol magazine pockets were to be worn only on the left hand side of the belt.

However, photographs of the cavalry troopers in Mexico, in 1916 show that they still wore the pistol magazine pouch on either side of their belts and even on the M1914 Cavalry Bandoleer!

If the M1910 Mounted Cartridge Belts had one pair of the revolver pockets removed by Ordnance personnel or at an arsenal they were technically designated as:

"Belt Cartridge, Cal .30, Mounted, Model of 1910 M"

The initial 'M' signified that the belt and pistol magazine pocket were issued together as a unit.

I see, but you have to have one pouch empty (I dont think holster loop would be big enough to slip on a pouch with two clips inside) moreover the holster has already the short thong tied to a grommet to prevent slippage.

Firt, you have to empty the cartridge pockets, then muscle the holster over the empty pockets, (remember that when they were doing this the holsters were new and pliable) re-fill all of the cartridge pockets (except the one that is under the holster's loop) and then slip the mag. pouch over the buckle and your good to go.

In theory, this would only have been done once, unless you were constantly shifting the position of the holster.

I have attached a photo of an M1914 belt for comparison, sadly the photo quality is not great due to a setting sun.The main difference is in the build, the pocket flaps on the M1910 are built inside the pocket, on the m1914 they are built on the outside, as a result on the m1910 pockets flaps curve inwards, whereas on the M1914 they sit flat. Also on the M1910 there are additional eyelets around the top. As for more obvious differences between these two particular belts are the colour, the M1910 has rimless snaps and is dated 1913, the M1914 has rimmed snaps and is dated January 1917, hence the reason for the difference in colour.

Thanks for pointing out the differences. Yes, Mills began to sew the pocket flaps to the back of the pockets by 1915. Maybe 1914 was the year the different flap attachment appears. It's hard for me to confirm this as I've only seen a 1913, and 1915 dated belts first hand.

> I see the M1907 suspenders are the same shade as the
> belts, could it be an early pattern of those in pea
> green? I find that most interesting.

Sorry, if I go a little off-topic here.

I submit to you the following photo:

The top belt is a M1903 ( 1st pattern c/ rimless eagle snaps); it
is mated to Mills manufactured M1907 suspenders of a similar colour.
The belt on the bottom is a M1910 (c/ rimmed eagle snaps); it, too,
is mated to a pair of Mills manufactured M1907 suspenders, also of
similar colour.

The two suspenders differ slightly in their construction. The buckles
on the bottom pair have an open gap, while those of the top are closed;
the top has metal re-enforcements where the top studs pass through
the canvas, whereas the bottom pair does not. Neither has a ledgeable
date stamp; however, the pea green colour of the bottom belt seems to
have disappeared around 1917. As I am not so familiar with the variations
of the M1907 suspenders, I cannot tell whether one modification came
before or after the other. Although I suspect, without proof, that the
more khaki appearing is a later period of manufacture as the material
across the shoulders is thicker, there is a noticeable amount of extra
re-enforcing stitching, and the additional metal bands serve to add
strength to an item that was probably found to be deficient from its
earlier forms.

You guys have magnificent collections and I enjoy looking at ya'll's
posted photos, Robin, as well as your web site, Frankie.

Attached Images

I've been trying to work out the color changes made to the early webbing and cartridge belts and this is what I have discovered so far.

The woven cotton and canvas field gear was manufactured in khaki (I always refer to it as 'khaki tan' because of it's light tan color) from 1903 until sometime in 1907. The color was supposed to match the color of the early khaki cotton service dress as closely as possible.

In July 1902 the Quartermaster General ordered the adoption of an olive drab wool service uniform for better concealment on the battlefield and because the khaki cotton service dress was deemed unsuitable for year round wear in colder climates. However, the Quartermaster Corps held off issuing the new olive drab service dress until existing stocks of the M1899 Blue Wool Sack Coat (that were left over from the Spanish American War) had been depleted. During this time the O.D. service dress was issue on a limited basis, mostly to troops returning from the Philippines.

In 1906 there was still a significant supply of the outdated blue coats in storage and it was decided to sell them off at a reduced price for off duty wear in order to expedite the issue of the new olive drab service uniforms at all army posts.

The issue of the olive drab uniforms coincided with an army decree in 1907 thatcalled for the color of all army cartridge belts, revolver belts and suspenders, etc. to be changed. The order stated that the equipment must be

“Dyed an olive drab color of the same standard shade as prescribed for the olive drab colored uniform of the United States Army.”

As a result during the change over all of the web field gear was made in both colors; they were produced in khaki until the existing supply of khaki woven cotton was exhausted, after which the new olive drab color was used until late 1914.

In 1914 the eagle snap fasteners were changed to 'rimmed' and the dye used to color the woven cotton was also changed from the standard shade of olive drab to a brighter shade of olive drab, often referred to as ‘pea green’. As always during any change the equipment was made in both colors (O.D. & pea green), but by far the majority of rimmed eagle snap equipmment seems to have been made in the brighter pea green color.

I've noticed that when the pea green belts begin to fade they resembles the older O.D. color, but when you place the two colors side by side there is an obvious difference. I have been unable to discover exactly why the color was changed. One possibility is that the O.D. and khaki dyes which were being made in Europe and used by most U.S. clothing manufacturers began to dwindle as a result of the War. I believe this to be true in later years but the change was made in 1914 which was the year that the war began and I don't think that the dye business was drastically effected at that time.

Can anybody provide any explainations, thoughts, theorys, proof or actual documented information on this color change?

Attached Images

The pea green color was changed to a khaki drab color in late 1917. This change was made as a direct result of the wartime shortage of O.D. and khaki color dyes imported from Euerope and a lower quality, cheaper domestic dye was adopted.

The original shade approved by the QTMC was a true khaki drab color but as the demand for more and more equipment grew the QTMC was forced to relax its color standards. As a result the colors of wartime produced field gear was all over the map and ranged from a light tan color to a dark olive drab color.

Here are the primary colors used from 1903 until 1918:

1. 'khaki tan' color used from 1903 until 1907
2. Olive rab color used from 1907 until 1914
3. 'Pea green' color used from 1914 until 1917
4. Khaki drab color (the most common shade) used through 1918